Where Have the Unaccompanied Alien Children Gone?The government has shut down three shelters at U.S. military bases holding the unaccompanied alien children that streamed across the southern border earlier in the year. The government has released 37,477 of the children across the states, but exactly where they won't say. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said, "It's outrageous. Now, this administration is telling the American people -- and Congress -- that we're not even entitled to know where these people are, where they're being held, what communities are going to be impacted." HHS has released a list of where 29,890 of the unaccompanied alien children were sent by county. But it doesn't show what towns are affected, whether the children are sent into a group home, or whether they are united with their families or are now in the foster care system. According to the Washington Examiner, only 280 were deported

Boy, did he get a wrong numberJustice Dept. official offers conditional leak of IRS documents, to House GOP staffers.

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTERPublished: Sept. 15, 2014 Updated: 4:34 p.m.

The staff of the House Oversight Committee’s Republican majority received a curious phone call two Fridays ago from Brian Fallon, director of the Justice Department’s office of public affairs.

Mr. Fallon confided that he had certain documents pertaining to the Internal Revenue Service scandal, which had been requested by Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa.

He asked that staff leak the documents to “selected reporters” – affording Attorney General Eric Holder’s spokesman an opportunity to publicly downplay their significance – before he handed them over to Rep. Issa.

It was an artful plan by Mr. Fallon, which he almost certainly would have pulled off but for one slip up: He called Rep. Issa’s staff when he meant instead to call staff for Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee’s ranking Democratic member. Mr. Fallon’s phone call confirmed suspicions that Rep. Cummings has been running interference for the Justice Department.

It also suggests to us that the President Obama’s attorney general is less interested in getting to the bottom of the IRS scandal – in which conservative groups were targeted for special scrutiny when applying for tax-exempt status routinely conferred to liberal groups – than he is in containing the episode’s political fallout.

The documents that prompted Mr. Fallon’s misdialed phone call concerned former Justice Department lawyer Andrew Strelka, who previously worked for Lois Lerner, who headed the scandalized IRS office that placed conservative groups on the agency’s “Be on the Lookout List.”

One of those groups was Z Street, a Philadelphia-based pro-Israel organization, which was informed by Ms. Lerner’s shop that it was targeted for special scrutiny because its views “contradict those of the administration,” Z Street founder Lori Lowenthal charges.

Ms. Lowenthal’s group filed a lawsuit in 2010 against the IRS – Z Street v. Koskinen. And of all the attorneys the Justice Department could have assigned to represent the IRS in the suit, Mr. Strelka was one of those chosen. Mr. Issa’s committee is understandably interested in speaking to Mr. Strelka, who worked directly for Ms. Lerner, and whose participation on the Justice Department’s defense team in Z Street constituted an obvious conflict of interest. But Mr. Strelka has been nowhere to be found. The Justice Department told Oversight Committee staff – the same staff Mr. Fallon mistakenly phoned – that Mr. Strelka is no longer on the payroll. But Justice has not provided contact information for its former counsel of record in the Z Street suit.

That’s the kind of ducking and dodging – in legal parlance, a better term would be “obstruction of justice” – that has marked the Justice Department’s investigation of the IRS scandal since Mr. Holder announced it 15 months ago.

Indeed, about the only things we know at this point is that Mr. Holder decided more than six months ago that no one would face criminal charges stemming from the IRS scandal – not even Ms. Lerner. And that the attorney general sees no need to turn over the investigation to an independent counsel.

Well, we take issue with Mr. Holder on both counts.

We think the suspicious loss of Ms. Lerner’s emails, as well as the destruction of her BlackBerry after a congressional investigation was launched, could very well be evidence of a criminal cover-up. We also think that the Justice Department investigation of the IRS scandal is so compromised – as evidenced by Mr. Fallen’s unwtting phone call – that Mr. Holder needs to turn it over to an independent counsel.

It would be refreshing if the Obama administration would do something right on the issue of immigration. Unfortunately for America, some hopes never result in change. Lawlessness continues to dominate White House policy.

To be clear, Barack Obama continues to completely disregard Rule of Law when it comes to immigration. He has usurped authority in order to keep our borders open to whoever wants to enter. He has refused to pressure the agencies tasked with enforcing laws on immigration to find and deport those who are here illegally. He has not only allowed tens of thousands of children from Central America to be transported into America illegally, but he has then redistributed them to cities throughout the U.S.Last month, we reported that Obama, at the request of several prominent Democrats, delayed action on immigration reform (read: amnesty) because too many congressional seats might be lost over the issue come November. For the moment, it's on the backburner with the timer set to ring after the election. Yet the issue of immigration, specifically illegal immigration, is on the minds of voters who love this country enough to try and save it from a rogue administration bent on permanently changing the demographics of the nation in order to ensure a permanent Democrat voting bloc.

The president has every intention to move forward with his agenda of allowing illegal immigrants to flood the country. A new report highlights actions the Obama administration has already undertaken.

Recently, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) started soliciting bids for a contractor to produce nine million identification cards in one year -- five million more than the annual requirement so as to meet a possible “surge” scenario of new immigrants. The new ID cards will consist of Permanent Residency Cards (also known as green cards) or Employment Authorization Documentation cards, which, according to the report, “have been used to implement President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.”

The request for so many new ID cards to accommodate the “surge” indicates Obama is planning executive action. But the immigration reform policies he wants to impose on the nation will be overwhelming for our struggling economy, as well as schools and medical facilities across the nation. This, however, is just part of the path to amnesty for illegals.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also quietly announced last Friday that, as National Review's Mark Krikorian puts it, "Certain illegal aliens from Honduras and Nicaragua are having their amnesty extended, and USCIS is establishing the 'Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program.'” These illegal immigrants, estimated to number 90,000, have already had Temporary Protected Status since 1999, which was granted to them following Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Fifteen years of “Temporary Protected Status?” Sounds more like Permanent Protected Status, which is exactly what the new parole program will allow. It’s another frequently deployed deceitful Obama tactic -- just change the meaning of words in order to accommodate the agenda.

To make matters worse, another recent report from the Center for Immigration Studies reveals, “[D]eportations from within the United States dropped 34 percent from last year and the number of criminal alien deportations declined by 23 percent.” Further, of the 900,000 immigrants who received a final order of removal, “167,000 are convicted criminals who were released by ICE.” Why aren’t the agencies tasked with enforcing the law on illegal immigration doing their job?

The answer is simple: When a president has an agenda to fundamentally transform America, he will do whatever it takes to accomplish it. He must be stopped. But who will stop him? The current Congress has done little because Democrats control the Senate, and they continue to appropriate money for Obama's agenda. That must change on Election Day, or amnesty will steamroll ahead, to the peril of our already fragile Republic.

However, this is not viable. It takes too long and a majority of Americans won't be for it.

For this to have a chance we need majority support..

Look at what happened with Clinton. It backfired. He is, as Rush recently pointed out in his radio show (on Drudge) when bringing up Clinton over Lewinsky, that HE is now the "rock" star of the Crat party. What a sad comment on our modern society. The guy who did more to dumb down the respect for office, did more to dumb down the integrity and moral values of the Presidency (by not resigning in a dignified way) is now their King.

The country is simply too divided for this. And forget Independents. They will lambast Republicans as the party of "no" and will just whine that no one in Washington is getting "anything" done or working "across the aisle".

I guess we are stuck. Hopefully win the Senate, get every single Republican in line (like the Crats do) and do what can be done and hope we win the Presidency in '16 and can turn some things around. I don't see any other choice other than real revolution which in this day and age in this country has zero chance.

Savage suggested that only happens when people are literally "starving".

As this thread all too eloquently testifies, there is much more here than felonious fellatio.

Fundamentally transforming America via the profoundly unconstitutional act of mass amnesty is something that MUST be stopped and IS something, especially on top of all the illegal postponements of Obamacare and all the rest of it, that DOES rise to the level of impeachment.

Whether the impeachment succeeds or not, it seems to me it should succeed in not letting the purported mass amnesty to stand.

It would seem to me that a presidential pardon would stop a prosecution, but granting citizenship would requires an act of Congress, signed by the President. If an executive action is unconstitutional, there should be a way to stop it short of impeachment.

Removal from office requires a trial in the Senate with a 2/3 majority vote; no election scenario involves a 67 seat majority. Impeachment ending in removal happens when the President's own party turns on him. (Not going to happen.) The process takes a long time and attempts to install Biden as President, eligible for (re)election. Even then, w still have to stop this, through the people, in the courts or through a constitutional crisis.

The question remains, how do you stop these guys? From Fast and Furious, to IRS election process theft, to lying to the nation about Benghazi, to taking unconstitutional executive actions, how do we stop them?

The answer was supposed to be: Win the House (2010). Win the Senate (didn't happen, 2010, 2012, maybe 2014). Win back the Presidency (didn't happen 2012, maybe 2016). Have the Court strike down unconstitutional acts (didn't happen with ACA). Vote contempt charges against cabinet members (had no consequence).

It comes down to political messaging and convincing a LOT more people that this kind of governing is unacceptable - and to offer a much better alternative.

"The question remains, how do you stop these guys? From Fast and Furious, to IRS election process theft, to lying to the nation about Benghazi, to taking unconstitutional executive actions, how do we stop them?"

If the guilty party is either the FBI, CIA, DIA or NSA, who do you have investigate this?

"If the Obama administration hacked into a reporter’s computers, used them to spy on her, and even prepared to frame her for a potential criminal prosecution by planting classified documents, aren’t we looking at the biggest scandal in American history?"

And if they didn't do it, and are outraged like the rest of us, where is the call for investigation?--------------------------------------------------------THE MOST STUNNING NEWS STORY OF 2014 John Hinderaker, Powerline (Link above in the quote from GM)Back in June 2013, we covered the hacking of at least one of reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s computers by persons unknown. CBS, which, as we now know, was anything but supportive of Attkisson, verified that the intrusion(s) had taken place:

A cyber security firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012. Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.

This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.

But we heard nothing further until the publication of Attkisson’s explosive book, Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington. Now the next shoe has dropped, as the New York Post reports:

In her new memoir, Sharyl Attkisson says a source who arranged to have her laptop checked for spyware in 2013 was “shocked” and “flabbergasted” at what the analysis revealed.

“This is outrageous. Worse than anything Nixon ever did. I wouldn’t have believed something like this could happen in the United States of America,” Attkisson quotes the source saying.

She speculates that the motive was to lay the groundwork for possible charges against her or her sources.

Attkisson says the source, who’s “connected to government three-letter agencies,” told her the computer was hacked into by “a sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency.”

The breach was accomplished through an “otherwise innocuous e-mail” that Attkisson says she got in February 2012, then twice “redone” and “refreshed” through a satellite hookup and a Wi-Fi connection at a Ritz-Carlton hotel.

The spyware included programs that Attkisson says monitored her every keystroke and gave the snoops access to all her e-mails and the passwords to her financial accounts.

“The intruders discovered my Skype account handle, stole the password, activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool,” she wrote in “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

But the most shocking finding, she says, was the discovery of three classified documents that Number One told her were “buried deep in your operating system. In a place that, unless you’re a some kind of computer whiz specialist, you wouldn’t even know exists.”

“They probably planted them to be able to accuse you of having classified documents if they ever needed to do that at some point,” Number One added.

If the Obama administration hacked into a reporter’s computers, used them to spy on her, and even prepared to frame her for a potential criminal prosecution by planting classified documents, aren’t we looking at the biggest scandal in American history? Perhaps I’m forgetting something, but I can’t come up with anything to equal the stunning lawlessness on display here–if what Attkisson says is true (which I don’t doubt), and if the administration is the guilty party.

If this were a Republican administration, every reporter in Washington would be on the story, as would various law enforcement agencies. Given that we are talking about a Democratic president, Attkisson shouldn’t expect any help. If I were she, I would hire one of the top litigation firms in Washington and look into suing appropriate federal agencies. That won’t be easy; the most obvious obstacle is that she has to have evidence that a particular agency was involved in the hacking/spying operation in order to survive a motion to dismiss, but it will be hard (maybe impossible) to get that evidence without the ability to do discovery in the lawsuit. But having her own lawsuit allows her to run her own show, and private lawyers are generally far more effective at unearthing and processing information than, say, Congressional committees.

It’s no secret in Washington that Labor Secretary Tom Perez wants to succeed Eric Holder as the nation’s next attorney general. But as a recent tweet reminded us, Mr. Perez has willfully ignored a House subpoena for more than a year . . . and he wants to be the country’s top lawyer?

Last week Mr. Perez gave this shout-out on the social media network to St. Paul, Minnesota Mayor Christopher Coleman: “Congrats to @mayorcoleman & the city of St. Paul for taking the next step to #LeadOnLeave!”—a reference to a Labor Department campaign for paid maternity leave. “#PaidLeave is good for families & our economy.”Tom Perez, U.S. secretary of labor ENLARGETom Perez, U.S. secretary of labor Bloomberg

Messrs. Perez and Coleman are quite a pair. In February 2012, as then-head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Mr. Perez agreed not to intervene in a False Claims Act case levelled against the city by a whistleblower. In exchange, Mr. Coleman agreed to withdraw the city’s pending lawsuit, Magner v. Gallagher, from the Supreme Court.

Magner concerned the legality of suing for unintentional discrimination (known as “disparate impact”) under the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Mr. Perez made a political name for himself at Justice by using the legal theory to accuse banks of racism and then reap hefty settlements. Many legal scholars considered the actions extortionary, and Mr. Perez—by frantically pushing to prevent the Justices from ruling on Magner—wanted to avoid a legal reckoning.

The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees, along with the minority staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, launched an investigation. They found Mr. Perez had tried to cover up the quid pro quo and “likely violated both the spirit and letter of the Federal Records Act” by using his personal email accounts to conduct official government business. The House subpoenaed his emails.

Mr. Perez flouted the subpoena and was rewarded by the Obama administration with a nomination for Labor Secretary, which Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed through the Senate after killing the filibuster. Meanwhile, a second disparate impact case was also mysteriously withdrawn from the Supreme Court before the Justices could hear oral arguments. Now the court has accepted a third case.

Mr. Perez’s nomination for AG isn’t a sure thing. Brooklyn prosecutor Loretta Lynch and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli are also in the running, and Mr. Perez sports thin credentials on important matters like national security. But surely his flouting of the law is the biggest problem with his candidacy.

Could a motivated Justice Department go after DNC operative encouragement of illegal voter fraud be possible. Of course not one under Obama, but what about one under a Republican President? IS this even possible amid reports on Drudge that Boehner can't even get a law firm to bring the case against Obama because of Democrat retribution against any lawyer who does this?:

Wasserman-Schultz, DNC hire army of lawyers to challenge election results

November 2, 2014 8:21 AM MST Wasserman-Schultz is already preparing to do battle with GOP winners on Election Day.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC), led by its hard hitting and verbose chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has hundreds of attorneys on retainer in order to fight the results of Tuesday's elections if things don't go their way, according a number of news stories on Sunday.

Voter identification laws appear to be the primary point of contention, with Republicans supporting the law and the Democrats opposing them. The DNC continues to use its "get out the vote" tactics while making allegations that the GOP is trying to "disenfranchise" minority voters, some of whom were proven to have been bused in from other districts or even states.

"These verbal tactics are beginning to become shopworn and bring to mind the words attributed to the father of Communism, Karl Marx: 'Accuse other of what you do.' If anything, it's the Republican National Committee officials who should hire a million lawyers and private detectives to launch investigations into alleged voting irregularities," said former police detective and corporate fraud investigator.

While the Democrats claim voter fraud -- especially voting by illegal aliens of 'green card' immigrants -- is a figment of the Republicans' imaginations, regardless of the studies that show illegal aliens indeed do register to vote and that the Democrats know it.

In one study, reported in an Examiner news story, it was shown that illegal aliens voting is not a "figment" of the GOP's imagination:

"The CCES is an esteemed and highly respected operation at Harvard University that recently published shocking information, gathered from big social science survey datasets, that supports Judicial Watch’s work in this area. In 2012 JW launched the Election Integrity Project, a widespread legal campaign to clean up voter registration rolls and support election integrity measures across the country. Our investigations immediately uncovered data that proved voter rolls in a number of states—including Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Florida, California and Colorado—contained the names of individuals who are ineligible to vote."

While the DNC will deny it encourages illegal voting, a perfect example occurred during a congressional race in California between Democrat Francine Busby and Republican Brian Bilbray: Busby was heard on a tape recorder telling a room full of Latino illegal and legal immigrants that they didn't need "papers" -- meaning identification -- to vote. At the time Busby led in the polls, but once talk radio shows across the nation played the recording, the GOP's Bilbray decisively beat her on election day.

"A study released by the conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation provides proof that illegal aliens and immigrants with green cards are committing rampant voter fraud in the United States. This is the reason that Democrats have supported "motor voter" legislation, to make it easier for voter fraud to occur, and why they have opposed voter IDs all of the way to the Supreme Court (where they lost in a suit against Indiana)," said Ted Lawrence, a political pollster and attorney.

While the mainstream news media are beginning to cover the story of rampant voter fraud perpetrated by liberal organizations such as ACORN, don't expect reporters to provide anymore than a passing interest in preventing illegal aliens -- or even legal immigrants -- from voting.

"[T]he people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 1787

=================An Obama supporter with integrity:

Barack Obama claims to be a "professor of constitutional law," but a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama's "über presidency," his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond "to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration," Turley responded, "This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers."

In July, Turley gave congressional testimony concerning Obama's abuse of executive orders: "When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's done is very problematic. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic."

He continued: "Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. ... The president's pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. ... Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. ... What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I think the framers would be horrified. ... We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. ... No one in our system can 'go it alone' -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the president."

Turley reiterated this week: "[Obama has] become a government of one. ... It's becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election, to defy the will of Congress yet again. ... What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers ... to protect Liberty, to keep any branch from assuming so much authority that they become a threat to Liberty. ... The Democrats are creating something very, very dangerous. They're creating a president who can go it alone -- the very danger that are framers sought to avoid in our Constitution. ... I hope he does not get away with it."

And so the whirlwind, cultivated by Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, the mainstream media and the army of thugs they enabled, is now being reaped. As the result of a St. Louis County grand jury refusing to indict officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown, Ferguson, MO has become Ground Zero, in what irresponsible Missouri State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadali referred to on MSNBC as “St. Louis’s race war.”

One of the race war’s architects pleaded for calm shortly after the decision was announced. Yet even as Obama spoke about that “need for calm” and that there was “no excuse for violence,” he insisted, “We have to try to understand” the anger of those who demanded nothing less than a murder charge absent an ounce of evidence as an “understandable reaction” from people who believe “the law is being applied in a discriminatory fashion.”

Where did those people get that belief? Leave it to Obama to omit that critical information — the same President Obama who met with protest leaders and Sharpton on Nov. 5 at the White House. It was at that unscheduled meeting the president was ostensibly “concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating,” according to Sharpton. “He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

One is left to marvel at one of two realities. Either we have a president so utterly naive he believes a hoax-perpetrating, riot-inciting Al Sharpton, who denigrated the grand jury process, pre-organized protest rallies in 25 American cities, and uses his MSNBC platform to fire up racial unrest, is a man of peace. Or the president, who once urged his Latino followers to “punish our enemies,” remains as wedded to the same racial “us against them” mentality as America’s foremost racial arsonist. Is it really possible to believe the former?

Despite Obama’s superficial condemnations of violence, at least 25 businesses were set ablaze, many of which are total losses—and most of which were minority owned. Ten cars were burned at a dealership, and a “lot of gunfire,” as Ferguson Asst. Fire Chief Steve Fair put it, made maintaining control of the streets highly problematic, if not impossible. Reporters were assaulted, the store Michael Brown robbed prior to his confrontation with Wilson was looted, and at least 61 people have been arrested. “What I’ve seen tonight is probably much worse than the worst night we ever had in August, and that’s truly unfortunate,” said St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar Monday at a 1:30 a.m press conference. Belmar further noted that there was “nothing left” along West Florissant between Solway Avenue and Chambers Road, that he heard at least 150 gun shots, and that he was surprised he and Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson, who “got lit up,” as they drove through the area, weren’t hit by that gunfire.

“We talked about peaceful protest, and that did not happen tonight,” Johnson said. “We definitely have done something here that’s going to impact our community for a long time…that’s not how we create change.”

Sharpton continued to stir the pot, criticizing Democratic Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s handling of the case, and demanding to know who voted for or against indicting Wilson, even though the law prohibits that information from being released. Sharpton’s motives are transparent. The grand jury was comprised of nine white and three black jurors, seven of whom were men, and five of whom were women. Agreement by nine of 12 jurors was necessary to file criminal charges, and there is no doubt Sharpton was attempting to exacerbate the racial divide with the implication that race was the over-riding, if not sole, factor in the decision.

The grand jury met 25 times over the course of three months and heard testimony from 60 witnesses. They contemplated charges ranging from first-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, and the bar for indictment was “probable cause,” not the far more onerous standard of determining “beyond a reasonable doubt” whether a crime had been committed. A plethora of evidence from the proceedings was released, demonstrating how the jury came to the conclusions it did. It included testimony from Wilson himself, physical evidence, and other eyewitness testimony, including some from black Americans who corroborated Wilson’s version of events. ”They determined that no probable cause exists to file any charge against Officer Wilson, and returned a ‘No True Bill’ on each of the five indictments,” explained McCulloch.

None of it mattered to the mob—or seemingly the media either. McCulloch faced a hostile press during his post-announcement interview, one that has characterized that interview as “bizarre,” no doubt in response to his contention the media’s “insatiable appetite for something, for anything to talk about, following closely behind with the non-stop rumors on social media,” contributed to the firestorm surrounding this case.

That would be the same media that initially lionized Brown’s friend, Dorian Johnson, whose thoroughly debunked eyewitness testimony about Brown being shot in the back while holding his hands up in surrender, epitomized the sensationalism that ignited the national firestorm. Johnson’s lie propelled much of the violence and unrest that followed, initiating the “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” meme that remains prevalent to this day. It was the same media that perpetrated the “gentle giant” meme to describe the 6’4’’ nearly 300-pound Brown, only to see it undone by his participation in a strong-arm robbery of a much smaller store owner just prior to his confrontation with Wilson. It was the media who leaked information during the grand jury proceedings, drawing a rebuke from an “exasperated” Holder, despite the reality that MSNBC, The New York Times and the Daily Caller all cited the administration and the Justice Department itself as sources of those leaks. That would be the same Eric Holder who ginned up mistrust of the police when he spoke to 50 community leaders, not just as Attorney General of the United States, but “as a black man” who remembers how “angry” he was when police stopped him for speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike.

That would also be the same Eric Holder, who like his efforts in the Trayvon Martin case, initiated two separate DOJ investigations, one of potential civil rights violations allegedly committed by Wilson, and the other regarding practices of the Ferguson police force. “While the grand jury proceeding in St. Louis County has concluded, the Justice Department’s investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown remains ongoing,” he said. “In addition, the Department continues to investigate allegations of unconstitutional policing patterns or practices by the Ferguson Police Department.”

As for social media, the Twitterverse is currently inundated with calls for the murder of Officer Wilson.

Thus it is unsurprising the protests have spread beyond Ferguson. In Oakland, CA, hundreds of protesters bearing signs that read “The People Say Guilty!” and “Missouri, Palestine, Justice Now!” (an illuminating linkage to say the least) blocked a major highway and other streets, starting fires, breaking the window of a bank, and spray painting a police cruiser with graffiti. In New York City, three bridges were blocked, there were marchers in Times Square and the Police Commissioner had fake blood thrown at him. A total of 90 cities across the nation were besieged by protesters who were seemingly united by a trio of themes: Michael Brown was innocent, Darren Wilson was guilty, and police departments deliberately and disproportionately target black America.

And once again, a mainstream media still interested in fanning the racialist flames is leading the way. The same CNN that ripped the heavy police presence in Ferguson last August is the CNN whose morning co-anchor Michaela Pereira spoke about the community’s “frustration the police didn’t do more to protect those businesses.” Vox columnist Ezra Klein, who apparently considers himself more knowledgable than the grand jury, penned a column whose title says it all: “Officer Darren Wilson’s story is unbelievable. Literally.” Why? “None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown,” Klein insists, even as he admits the encounter with Wilson happened shortly after the aforementioned robbery. Salon.com pushed the envelope to the max, declaring the jury’s decision “reaffirmed what we already knew: America is a white supremacist state.”

Even Brown’s immediate family, who initially expressed “profound disappointment with the decision, but asked that the protests “be kept peaceful,” had their wishes undermined by stepfather Louis Head. Shortly after the decision was reached, he urged the crowd 10 times to “burn this bitch down.”

Those four words aptly describe the agenda of those with a vested interest in keeping Americans divided, angry and completely convinced the nation is a cesspool of racism where law enforcement must be considered the “enemy.” A nation where there are no longer irrefutable facts backed by witnesses and evidence, but a nation where reason and truth can only be determined after the filter of race is applied. One where the narrative must be served, even when that narrative assumes the characteristics of a lynch mob calling for the death of a police officer.

It is a narrative that dismisses the reality of a disproportionate amount of homicides and other crimes committed by black Americans (overwhelmingly against other black Americans) relative to their population, even as it has long glorified the thug culture that engenders most of it. It is the narrative that demands police forces who “reflect the racial demography of the community,” even as many black Americans have been “taught from the time that you could speak, from the time that you could understand speech, that police are to be feared and that they’re part of an occupying force that is there to circumvent the democratic processes and to strip you of your rights,” according to Phillip Atiba Goff, co-founder and president of the Center for Policing Equity at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Saddest of all, it is the narrative supported by a president whose track record extends from his past with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his racist rantings and assertions the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” when they arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., to his efforts to exacerbate racial discord during and after the Trayvon Martin saga. He is joined by an Attorney General who believes Americans are a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race, one who insists voter ID is tantamount to “black disenfranchisement,” and continues to run the most racially polarized DOJ in recent history.

Even worse, both men have unduly elevated the status of race huckster Al Sharpton, showing up at National Action Network (NAN) galas to sing his praises. That odious reality is tantamount to a Republican president showing up at a meeting of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization and singing the praises of its white supremacist founder, David Duke. The fact that such as comparison is never made obscures the depths of the racial polarization embraced by the nations’s top two law enforcement officials. It is both an ongoing tragedy and a national disgrace that will only be assuaged when Sharpton and every other person who profits from the misery of millions is ejected from the national stage.

Until then, America will seethe. Well-meaning Americans on both sides of the color line will tread warily, remaining ultimately distrustful of each other, lest they be branded sellouts to “the cause.” The mob and its media enablers will continue to foment violence, looting, death and destruction, based largely on the notion that such mayhem is a “reasonable” price to be extracted from an irredeemably racist nation in need of “fundamental transformation.” One family will mourn for a son who could not resist the siren song of thug culture, while another family will continue to live in terror perhaps forever, or at least until the mob finds another bogeyman at whom it can channel its orchestrated blood-lust. The thin blue line that separates America from the anarchists will be stretched to its limits.

And the promise of a post-racial society that once propelled this president into the White House now more closely resembles the division and racialist bean-counting that epitomizes the community organizer mindset. In short, hope and change is going up in flames in Ferguson, MO.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

The Law Is With Obama on ImmigrationHistory may judge the president unwise, but he is on firm ground going back to FDR.By William A. GalstonNov. 25, 2014 7:42 p.m. ET76 COMMENTS

Last week I had a visceral sense that President Obama ’s executive order on immigration exceeded his constitutional authority. After days of reading and reflection, I’ve changed my mind. History may judge Mr. Obama’s move to be unwise, but it is not illegal.

To understand the current debate, we must look back to the heyday of the New Deal. Along with expansive legislation, new agencies charged with implementing these laws proliferated during the 1930s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt grew worried, commenting that the ability of these new entities to perform legislative and judicial as well as executive functions “threatens to develop a fourth branch of government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution.”

In 1939, FDR asked Attorney General Frank Murphy to study the matter, and the 1941 report of the committee Murphy led became an important source on which legislators were to draw. Five years later, after what the House Judiciary Committee described as a period of “painstaking and detailed study and drafting,” Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which has served ever since as the legal charter of the modern administrative state.

In general, the APA gives the executive branch wide discretion, especially in creating rules for implementing laws. If Congress establishes clear priorities for enforcing the laws it enacts, the executive branch is obligated to honor them as best it can, consistent with the resources Congress provides for this purpose. When Congress does not establish such priorities or fails to appropriate sufficient resources to implement them, the matter is (in the language of the APA) “committed to agency discretion.”

What happens if the exercise of this discretion leads an agency to refrain from enforcing the law against individuals or classes of individuals subject to the law?

As it happens, the Supreme Court answered this question three decades ago in Heckler v. Chaney, which remains the leading case. In a decision joined by seven other justices, Justice William Rehnquist noted that, “This Court has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”

There is, Rehnquist concluded, a “general presumption of unreviewability of decisions not to enforce”—unless the statute being administered “quite clearly withdrew discretion from the agency and provided guidelines for the exercise of its enforcement power.” The Heckler court, however, did endorse another standard that could trigger judicial review—namely, cases in which an agency has “consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.”

Now comes the current controversy over how the Obama administration has chosen to implement the Immigration and Nationality Act. Here again there is a leading case—Arizona v. United States in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy observed for the majority that although Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the U.S. and the procedures for doing so, “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”

As a threshold matter, officials must decide “whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all,” an exercise of discretion that may embrace what Justice Kennedy termed “immediate human concerns.” And he offered an example: “Unauthorized workers trying to support their families . . . likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime.”

This brings us to the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, which notes that because of the mismatch between the number of undocumented aliens (an estimated 11.3 million and the number of removals that annual congressional funding allows (400,000), the Department of Homeland Security has no choice but to establish enforcement priorities. The priorities announced in President Obama’s executive order, the OLC concludes, fall within the DHS’s “lawful discretion to enforce the immigration laws.”

The DHS policy doesn’t violate priorities established by Congress, says the OLC opinion. By establishing high-priority categories, moreover, the DHS does not altogether preclude the removal of aliens in lower priorities if the facts and circumstances warrant. And the DHS action meets the broad Heckler test: It doesn’t amount to an abdication of the DHS’s statutory responsibilities or constitute a rule overriding statutory commands.

President Obama’s decision has made many congressional Republicans very unhappy. They have three choices. They can try to use the power of the purse to prevent the president from carrying out his decision, which could lead to another government shutdown, an outcome that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to avert. They can try to take the administration to court, which would have a low probability of success. Or they can try to do what they should have done years ago: Amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to create a better legal regime.

Isn’t it time for our legislators to stop whining and start legislating?

FDR is hardly the gold standard for following the constitution and Galston is paid to balance the WSJ editorial page with a liberal, opposing view.

Pres. Obama is not constrained by resources; his enforcement of the laws is constrained by his ideology. You can find his reasons and motives for his actions in his own words.

Constitutional would be for the head of the executive branch to declare that he is doing he level best to uphold the current laws as written and passed until he can win enough votes in the legislative branch to get those laws changed to the way he would prefer them. IMHO

a) Let's stay on point. The standard he cites is not FDR, but the APA and SCOTUS decisions.

b) What about this? "This brings us to the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel, which notes that because of the mismatch between the number of undocumented aliens (an estimated 11.3 million and the number of removals that annual congressional funding allows (400,000), the Department of Homeland Security has no choice but to establish enforcement priorities."

If the late Saul Alinsky—the America-hating godfather of community organizing—had fathered a black son, he’d look like Barack Obama. Obama has embraced, revered, and employed Alinsky’s philosophy and tactics of social revolution for decades. Indeed, he even taught Alinsky’s methods in community-organizing workshops and seminars in Chicago, when he was a much younger Marxist. As we witness the continuing racial unrest sparked by the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson grand jury’s subsequent decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson, it is vital to understand that everything the protesters/rioters are doing—in Ferguson and elsewhere—is straight out of Alinsky’s most famous publications, Rules For Radicals and Reveille For Radicals. And Obama has encouraged them, every step of the way.

Obama and Alinsky never actually met in person, as Alinsky died when Obama was just 11 years old. Happily for the future president, by that time he had already been introduced to the man who would mentor him throughout his adolescent years—the America-hating, pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin, Communist writer Frank Marshall Davis. Thus, when Obama eventually encountered Alinsky through the latter’s writings, the young community organizer was well prepared ideologically to soak up Alinsky’s message.

In his quest to cultivate the type of chaos that would spark social revolution against America’s capitalist system, Alinsky exhorted activists to constantly “rub raw the resentments of the people” and “fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression”—but to do this in measured tones, so as not to “scare off” middle-class Americans.

Thus did Obama dutifully and blandly call for “unity” and calm in the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown’s “heartbreaking and tragic” death, even as he repeatedly reminded us that: “police should not be bullying or arresting” anyone without cause; “in too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and left as objects to fear”; “there is no excuse for excessive force by police”; “the justice gap” between whites and nonwhites is unacceptable; “the criminal-justice system doesn’t treat people of all races equally”; and “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black, or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” And when the grand jury in Ferguson subsequently chose not to indict Darren Wilson because the officer obviously had shot Michael Brown in self-defense, Obama pronounced the black community’s indignation to be “an understandable reaction.”

Obama’s carefully chosen words—all delivered in the type of nonthreatening tenor advocated by Saul Alinsky—clearly communicated a single, foundational theme to African Americans: In the racist cesspool known as the United States, black people are routinely treated like second-class citizens, if not subhumans. Oh, and by the way, please remain calm. Wink, wink.

Alinsky also taught that in some cases activists must be completely willing—for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they profess to act—to turn up the proverbial heat and watch society descend into chaos and anarchy; to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.” “Wherever possible,” Alinsky counseled, “go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”

Mobs of shouting protesters can accomplish that objective quite effectively—even if, as in the present case, they are oblivious to the irony that the poster-child of their crusade is a multiple felon who tried unsuccessfully to murder a police officer. Such demonstrations tend to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is not only well underway, but may actually be preparing to shift into an even higher gear at any moment. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating. Thus did President Obama recently meet at the White House with Al Sharpton, his leading advisor on race-related matters, and other protest leaders from Ferguson, urging them to “stay on course” with their activism.

Yet another highly noteworthy observation by Alinsky was this: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” “The threat,” he explained, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Thus, “if your organization is small in numbers,… raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”

This can be well achieved by orchestrating a host of simultaneous demonstrations in multiple cities or venues, exactly as the highly organized Gentle Giant crusade has been doing. The stature of these rallies is magnified by the fact that they receive lots of media attention, while scores of millions of ordinary Americans who view them with contempt and dread are busy quietly going about their lives, caring for their families, working at their jobs, and pursuing their personal aspirations as they see fit. Such people are many thousands of times more numerous than the perpetually aggrieved rabble-rousers of the Left, but Alinsky understood—as Obama understands today—that a spraying skunk inevitably gets all the attention when it intrudes unexpectedly upon a picnic.

The America-hating Alinsky also taught that activists, in order to cast themselves as defenders of high-minded principles, must theatrically convey “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever any of their demands—however inconsequential—are not met. And no one conveys such emotions more convincingly than Obama’s aforementioned racial “advisor,” Al Sharpton, who vows to continue the Michael Brown/anti-police brutality crusade until the end of time if necessary. Alinsky understood quite well that even a pathetic moral degenerate like Sharpton can be an effective revolutionary if he is skilled in the otherwise worthless arts of bluster and righteous indignation.

Lest anyone think there might be a way to bridge the gap between civil society and the revolutionaries in the vanguard of the current Gentle Giant Brigades, a dose of reality is in order: Alinsky emphasized that the overarching objective of any crusade is never to promote peace or reconciliation, but rather to be unwaveringly “dedicated to an eternal war” in which “there are no rules of fair play” and “no compromise” whatsoever; to mercilessly “pulverize” people with “fear”; and ultimately to “force their capitulation.”

We got a glimpse of this mindset recently when we learned that two New Black Panther Party members were plotting not only to blow up St. Louis’s famed Gateway Arch, but also to assassinate Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson and the city’s prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch. And a shrieking Louis Farrakhan, for his part, has been busy urging black Americans to throw Molotov cocktails at white people in order to fulfill a scriptural “law of retaliation”; condemning whites for allegedly “killing us” in large numbers; and warning that “we’ll tear this goddamn country up!”

Like all Marxists, Obama, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and the rest of their fellow revolutionaries seek to tear society apart by pitting the “races,” the “classes,” and the “genders” against one another—“rubbing raw” their respective “resentments” until hatred abounds in every person’s heart and mayhem fills the streets. Michael Brown’s corpse is merely a building block for these rabble rousers. They know that someday another African American will be killed by a white police officer and thus be anointed as their movement’s next martyred saint. Bit by bit, the inconvenient fact that Brown was a violent, abusive criminal whose death was brought about entirely by his own actions will be airbrushed out of public memory. And the grievance mongers of the “civil rights” movement will wistfully remember him as just another innocent black victim whose life was tragically cut short by white depravity.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.